This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Twelve-bar blues article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexbirger1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This page needs a history section!! When did the 12-bar riff originate? How? Who? etc. List of randomly selected songs from the 1950s and 1960s is not good enough surely? especially when there were plenty of pop songs from the 1940s i.e. Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy that incorporated the 12-bar riff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.24.237 ( talk) 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a bit of reverting going on. Please folks:
Accidentals are notes that are not part of the key shown in the key signature at the beginning of a stave. The notes in the key of C are: C D E F G A B, no sharps or flats. If you have a note like F#, then it is an accidental if you are playing a piece with a key signature of C.
However, in the key of G, F# is one of the notes in they key. Just because it is sharp, does not make it an accidental.
All the sharps/flats are black notes on a piano, whether they are in the key or not. The sentence really should read "Keyboardists may prefer chords with fewer black keys", not "with fewer accidentals". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrolf ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 April 2009
Is The Clash's " Should I Stay or Should I Go" really twelve bar blues? I just don't see it from the chords as posted on the net. Wrolf ( talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The twelve bar blues are generally played in the key of A, but can be played in any key, often using 7th & 9th chord variations. When played on guitar and bass the blues is most often played in home chords, or chords with several open strings': E-A-B7 or A-D-E7. Keyboardists may prefer C-F-G7 or G-C-D7. If no key is specified, it is assumed that the key will be A.
POV: The 12-bar blues are easy and fun to play! — Quinobi 19:44, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As I'm a new user I thought i'd place some ideas here for a period, in order for any disagreements to be resolved before i go and make changes etc
1. I'm not sure I agree with directly linking the twelve bar blues progression and 4/4 time per se. Idioms which make extensive use of the twelve bar blues (ie including most "blues" styles) do use 4/4 time almost almost exclusively. But the twelve bar form has been extensively used in many styles! And, in some cases, other time signatures/rhythmic schemes have been involved... (ie All Blues, Miles Davis in 3/4) This in no way deemphasises the fact that it is a twelve bar blues, you know it and feel it. I don't think you can say that "twelve bar blues=4/4 time". And now that I think of it, most traditional "blues" styles use 12/8, anyway!
3. My primary concern is with the jargonesque explanation of the essential characteristics of the form. I think a more useful approach would be to simplify it into its essence, something that I do and explain in layman's terms for students on a (very) regular basis. In other words I think the "call - variation - response" essence kind of thing needs to be drawn out as a priority. From this the technicalities and variations can be discussed. The more obscure (classical?) theoretical references seem more like an appendix or final note?:
Yeah. Despite having an extensive music background (B.Mus w first class honours), i'm pretty lost in this paragraph. still useful info, but needs to be prefaced w something more approachable?
I'll leave this here for a while before I pull anything...
Wow! Its so damn rubbish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aurgi 12:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines anywhere concerning how to represent chord progressions within Wikipedia? If not there should be. It would make things a lot clearer if everyone used the same system. In this one article there are three different methods used: numbers (1 4 5) roman numerals (I IV V) and names (T S D.)
The roman numeral system is probably the way to go, it's the way musicians write things out when dealing with relative harmony.
Also, harmonic rhythm is often confusing or ambiguous in a lot of the articles I've seen. Sometimes a chord symbol represents a measure and other times a single beat. The use of bar lines is probably a good idea.
Text sucks for conveying music notation but some measure of consistency would make these articles a lot more useful and readable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ned5000 ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
I'll agree with the claim that text sucks for conveying music notation... but since the music itself often includes text, in the form of lyrics, a compromise might be to expand the article by using a well-known song (though finding one that's familiar to everyone will be an impossible challenge), and breaking it down line by line. To the extent that the song is well-known enough, this would allow readers to get the gist of what the textual explanations are trying to do. There are some good examples of 12-bar based songs already, but one could question whether the average reader will have heard the "Empty Bed Blues," for example, as often as more popular works.
C d h
12:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The The Blues Chord Progression section begins:
A basic example of the progression would look like this, using T to indicate the tonic, S for the subdominant, and D for the dominant, and representing one chord per measure:
T T T T S S T T D S T T
Nice try at explaining the progression, but the terms tonic, subdominant, and dominant are not in common parlance, at least among the musicians I play/perform/teach with. As pointed out previously, the roman numeral notation system would be more universally understood. That aside, the above example is not basic, and not the place to begin discussing this progression and its variations. Rather the following progression (using the original notation) is basic:
...the tenth bar [stays] in dominant, yielding this:
T T T T S S T T D D T T
IMO, all twelve-bar blues progressions are variations of this minimalist form. But your mileage may vary.
AlvinMGO 14:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we have a history section outlining where the progression was first found, how it became famous etc? Enobeno ( talk) 00:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a discussion of origins is in order. I know the first recorded song using the 12-bar blues progression was covered in my History of American Popular Music class, so a reference shouldn't be too hard to find. Toyblocks ( talk) 03:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
The problem here is that really nobody knows about the origins of the blues as a form. You could I am sure read for 30 years and never get to be sure about this.
But I suggest that we do not focus of recorded songs using the blues progression. Have a look at a book by Peter Muir. Hundreds of blues were published prior to recording, so it may be that for origins a look at recordings is in order.
The sensible thing to do might be to have a section on 'theories about the origins of the 12-bar blues'. That would a) be more accurate and b) might focus minds on the fact that nobody really knows for sure.
Kate Mash 15:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Kate Mash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate Mash ( talk • contribs)
It's patently ridicoulous to have an articlethat doesn't tell you anything about the history and cultural aspects of 12 bar and in context with blues music in general. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 20:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The article currently includes the following paragraph.
The last sentence seems to confuse an accidental with a black key. Changing a song to a different key can result in more or fewer black keys, but any note that was an accidental relative to the original key will be an accidental relative to the new key. And the example chords given contain no (C-F-G7) or few (G-C-D7) black keys.
Do others agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.89.65 ( talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
12-bar blues is a creative base for a blues piece. But everyone is using this base to make blues pieces. This is NOT creativity and it is not being a composer!
12-bar blues: SUCK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.248 ( talk) 23:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, 'bar', 'tonic', 'subdominant'..? It all sounds equally mysterious to me. Perhaps a simple audio sample would help to instantly explain this thing to non-musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.95.73 ( talk) 17:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
As a lay person who is in the process of learning an instrument, I found this whole article unintelligible; please translate from "music" into english. (and yes I did follow links/look at references/listen to bits.) Remember that wikipedia is not a reference for people who _already_ know what they're looking up. (I'd try to fix it myself, but... I couldn't follow it at all. Besides I have my hands full trying to translate the *math* pages into english) Eastmbr ( talk) 06:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an article about 12-bar blues in jazz. I have proposed merging that article into a new section here, in Twelve-bar blues. There really is no reason to have two articles. Different variations of the same chord progression occur in jazz, early rhythm and blues, blues and rock music... Feedback? Thanks. BassHistory ( talk) 09:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I've flagged this article for the two merges which were proposed on Dec 8th without flagging on this article, to assist with awareness and discussion by all who may have an interest. ( don't think this two-way notification process was followed prior to another merger this week: see Talk:Jazz blues.) AllyD ( talk) 08:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Why and how would eight-bar blues be merged into this article? Hyacinth ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Why and how would sixteen-bar blues be merged into this article? Hyacinth ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Why and how would Bird changes be merged into this article? Hyacinth ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:V-IV-I turnaround#Merge with Twelve-bar blues? Hyacinth ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has now been ported wholesale into Twelve-bar blues. The result is what we in this part of the world call a midden. The article now has two sets of Navboxes, two placements for references, and duplicating sets of interwiki links. Use one "Nederlands" link and you'll get to "Jazzblues", use the other and you'll get to "Bluesschema". So some tidying needed, and I started then abandoned editing, as this first needs consensus on what should be the Interwiki links on this fused article: presumably just those from the original "Twelve-bar blues" article and discard the former "Jazz blues" ones as no longer worthy of an English article and therefore not an interwiki either?
But taking things a bit wider, maybe there's an opportunity for a bit more consensus building on what is the appropriate outcome in article space? A few issues then:
Thoughts welcome. I'm not sure this is even an appropriate place any more after today's merger, but the overall target article landscape surely needs to be defined and agreed rather than piecemeal change. AllyD ( talk) 18:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Why and where does this article need to be cleaned up? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth ( talk) 02:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Which examples are unclear? Hyacinth ( talk) 02:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Removed the following by User:Gene Fellner from the text of the article:
— Wahoofive ( talk) 20:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
...if even an article was begging for 'em....-- Froglich ( talk) 22:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The page is full of unplayable (for most) files that do not play on the page itself (at least not for me) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theabsurdreigns ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Fiddlesticks I noticed there are a few typos. Forgive me for my indiscretions and not spell checking. ;) Sickboy254698 ( talk) 22:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There are thousands of songs which use a 12-bar blues progression. A majority of songs by blues-related artists use it and listing them here is just stating the obvious. Propose to include only atypical (non-blues) uses of the progression. To help meet verifiablity, propose to include only songs that have WP articles that specifically say they use it or have an inline citation to a reference that confirms this (see WP:SOURCELIST). — Ojorojo ( talk) 14:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
"Citation needed" is not enough. To try and pass JBG off as a "shuffle or light swing" does not pass the listening test with me & my expert. What about you and yours? Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 22:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the sample to listen to for B is incorrect. It actually says that it's for C and plays C, I think.
Don't know how to edit this.
Berniflower ( talk) 13:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Berniflower
IDK if this is the right place to put this. If it's not I apologize. It's my first post. I am only trying to help from a musician standpoint.
For starters after reading some responses to other people's posts I'm not sure I even want to post this. Just going to throw that out there. This is something I know a lot about so I'm trying to help. I have seen other people's posts where they're trying to help out because this is something they know about and those people have accused of being ignorant and stupid. That's not what I expect for Wikipedia. Anyways....
Virtually all of the articles on Wikipedia regarding musical theory of any kind are overly complicated. Contain useless, repetitive information, and make what should be fairly simple concepts impossible to understand.
I chose this article to comment on because it's one of the only ones that is done in a way that is fairly easy for someone who is not musically inclined to understand. That being the goal I would assume. That someone who is not a musician or is looking to become one could come to this page and learn something.
This article contains simple easy to understand charts and descriptions of what goes in those charts. A very easy way for someone to say "oh wow the notes correspond to the numbers and this makes sense now". None of the other articles I have read about music theory contain any of that. I will adhere that I have read dozens if not over a hundred articles links to music theory on Wikipedia. I have read at the very least a few thousand if not more than 10,000 articles on Wikipedia. some days I will read over a hundred at a time.
Moving along... The music theory articles contain musical notation. They contain major and minor chord and note names. Scales etc. Information that the average person who comes here to learn something has no idea what you're talking about. even if you follow all the way down to the most basic of elements in the music theory articles they are all written in a way that the new person or average person cannot possibly understand. They are just way too complicated.
I am only trying to help. My suggestion would be that music articles had some sort of format applied to them. I'm not sure if that goes against what is the normal round here like I said it's my first post. I'm just trying to help. But the simplicity of the charts and diagrams provided in this article should be applied to the other articles.
Now if the answer is I should just do it my damn self. That's not very helpful. I am not a very good editor. I tend to talk too much in case you haven't noticed. I'm loquacious when I need not be. Explaining things in a simple concise way is not my expertise. Music is. So while I can suggest how the articles should be written I don't think it would be best if I wrote them.
Examples of articles that are terrible and horrendously difficult to understand.
- passing notes - tonic/root note - chord progressions
those are just three off the top of my head but...
Every article that is linked into the chord progressions article is written in the way that I described above. Too complicated. The average person will not understand. Not just the average person. The new person coming to learn something that will fulfill their soul's desires. Because that's what this should be about. The knowledge we can give to people to fulfill their own personal desires.
anyways. Like I said I can provide assistance and suggestions on how they can be made simpler. Forgive me if this was not the place to put my verbal diarrhea I'm only trying to help. Thank you Sickboy254698 ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Why is the most frequently encountered version of the progression in blues and rock (not jazz) missing from the Article? I mean:
I I I I V V I I VI V I VI
I.e. it doesn't go to the dominant in the second bar. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 13:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I | I | I | I | V | V | I | I | VI | V | I | VI |
Well I'm afraid there are other things in my life besides Wikipedia (such as miaking music) so my apologies for taking a few days to reply! Yes, I got muddled, I don't normally use that notation. Basically, I mean the commonest form stays on the root for four bars.
I I I I IV IV I I V IV I V Stub Mandrel ( talk) 21:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I see it is 'variation A', but really it does deserve a bit more prominence.
Stub Mandrel ( talk) 21:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
the notation says (simplified):
I, IV, I, I,
IV I, #IV, I, V/ii,
ii, V, I V/ii, ii V
the audio file plays (simplified):
I, IV, I, V I,
IV, #IV, I, V/ii,
ii, V, I V/ii, ii V
I think the audio file makes more sense but whichever one is right I think they should match right? changing the text for now
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Twelve-bar blues article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexbirger1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This page needs a history section!! When did the 12-bar riff originate? How? Who? etc. List of randomly selected songs from the 1950s and 1960s is not good enough surely? especially when there were plenty of pop songs from the 1940s i.e. Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy that incorporated the 12-bar riff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.24.237 ( talk) 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a bit of reverting going on. Please folks:
Accidentals are notes that are not part of the key shown in the key signature at the beginning of a stave. The notes in the key of C are: C D E F G A B, no sharps or flats. If you have a note like F#, then it is an accidental if you are playing a piece with a key signature of C.
However, in the key of G, F# is one of the notes in they key. Just because it is sharp, does not make it an accidental.
All the sharps/flats are black notes on a piano, whether they are in the key or not. The sentence really should read "Keyboardists may prefer chords with fewer black keys", not "with fewer accidentals". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrolf ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 April 2009
Is The Clash's " Should I Stay or Should I Go" really twelve bar blues? I just don't see it from the chords as posted on the net. Wrolf ( talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The twelve bar blues are generally played in the key of A, but can be played in any key, often using 7th & 9th chord variations. When played on guitar and bass the blues is most often played in home chords, or chords with several open strings': E-A-B7 or A-D-E7. Keyboardists may prefer C-F-G7 or G-C-D7. If no key is specified, it is assumed that the key will be A.
POV: The 12-bar blues are easy and fun to play! — Quinobi 19:44, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As I'm a new user I thought i'd place some ideas here for a period, in order for any disagreements to be resolved before i go and make changes etc
1. I'm not sure I agree with directly linking the twelve bar blues progression and 4/4 time per se. Idioms which make extensive use of the twelve bar blues (ie including most "blues" styles) do use 4/4 time almost almost exclusively. But the twelve bar form has been extensively used in many styles! And, in some cases, other time signatures/rhythmic schemes have been involved... (ie All Blues, Miles Davis in 3/4) This in no way deemphasises the fact that it is a twelve bar blues, you know it and feel it. I don't think you can say that "twelve bar blues=4/4 time". And now that I think of it, most traditional "blues" styles use 12/8, anyway!
3. My primary concern is with the jargonesque explanation of the essential characteristics of the form. I think a more useful approach would be to simplify it into its essence, something that I do and explain in layman's terms for students on a (very) regular basis. In other words I think the "call - variation - response" essence kind of thing needs to be drawn out as a priority. From this the technicalities and variations can be discussed. The more obscure (classical?) theoretical references seem more like an appendix or final note?:
Yeah. Despite having an extensive music background (B.Mus w first class honours), i'm pretty lost in this paragraph. still useful info, but needs to be prefaced w something more approachable?
I'll leave this here for a while before I pull anything...
Wow! Its so damn rubbish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aurgi 12:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines anywhere concerning how to represent chord progressions within Wikipedia? If not there should be. It would make things a lot clearer if everyone used the same system. In this one article there are three different methods used: numbers (1 4 5) roman numerals (I IV V) and names (T S D.)
The roman numeral system is probably the way to go, it's the way musicians write things out when dealing with relative harmony.
Also, harmonic rhythm is often confusing or ambiguous in a lot of the articles I've seen. Sometimes a chord symbol represents a measure and other times a single beat. The use of bar lines is probably a good idea.
Text sucks for conveying music notation but some measure of consistency would make these articles a lot more useful and readable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ned5000 ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
I'll agree with the claim that text sucks for conveying music notation... but since the music itself often includes text, in the form of lyrics, a compromise might be to expand the article by using a well-known song (though finding one that's familiar to everyone will be an impossible challenge), and breaking it down line by line. To the extent that the song is well-known enough, this would allow readers to get the gist of what the textual explanations are trying to do. There are some good examples of 12-bar based songs already, but one could question whether the average reader will have heard the "Empty Bed Blues," for example, as often as more popular works.
C d h
12:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The The Blues Chord Progression section begins:
A basic example of the progression would look like this, using T to indicate the tonic, S for the subdominant, and D for the dominant, and representing one chord per measure:
T T T T S S T T D S T T
Nice try at explaining the progression, but the terms tonic, subdominant, and dominant are not in common parlance, at least among the musicians I play/perform/teach with. As pointed out previously, the roman numeral notation system would be more universally understood. That aside, the above example is not basic, and not the place to begin discussing this progression and its variations. Rather the following progression (using the original notation) is basic:
...the tenth bar [stays] in dominant, yielding this:
T T T T S S T T D D T T
IMO, all twelve-bar blues progressions are variations of this minimalist form. But your mileage may vary.
AlvinMGO 14:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we have a history section outlining where the progression was first found, how it became famous etc? Enobeno ( talk) 00:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a discussion of origins is in order. I know the first recorded song using the 12-bar blues progression was covered in my History of American Popular Music class, so a reference shouldn't be too hard to find. Toyblocks ( talk) 03:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
The problem here is that really nobody knows about the origins of the blues as a form. You could I am sure read for 30 years and never get to be sure about this.
But I suggest that we do not focus of recorded songs using the blues progression. Have a look at a book by Peter Muir. Hundreds of blues were published prior to recording, so it may be that for origins a look at recordings is in order.
The sensible thing to do might be to have a section on 'theories about the origins of the 12-bar blues'. That would a) be more accurate and b) might focus minds on the fact that nobody really knows for sure.
Kate Mash 15:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Kate Mash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate Mash ( talk • contribs)
It's patently ridicoulous to have an articlethat doesn't tell you anything about the history and cultural aspects of 12 bar and in context with blues music in general. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 20:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The article currently includes the following paragraph.
The last sentence seems to confuse an accidental with a black key. Changing a song to a different key can result in more or fewer black keys, but any note that was an accidental relative to the original key will be an accidental relative to the new key. And the example chords given contain no (C-F-G7) or few (G-C-D7) black keys.
Do others agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.89.65 ( talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
12-bar blues is a creative base for a blues piece. But everyone is using this base to make blues pieces. This is NOT creativity and it is not being a composer!
12-bar blues: SUCK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.254.248 ( talk) 23:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, 'bar', 'tonic', 'subdominant'..? It all sounds equally mysterious to me. Perhaps a simple audio sample would help to instantly explain this thing to non-musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.95.73 ( talk) 17:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
As a lay person who is in the process of learning an instrument, I found this whole article unintelligible; please translate from "music" into english. (and yes I did follow links/look at references/listen to bits.) Remember that wikipedia is not a reference for people who _already_ know what they're looking up. (I'd try to fix it myself, but... I couldn't follow it at all. Besides I have my hands full trying to translate the *math* pages into english) Eastmbr ( talk) 06:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There is currently an article about 12-bar blues in jazz. I have proposed merging that article into a new section here, in Twelve-bar blues. There really is no reason to have two articles. Different variations of the same chord progression occur in jazz, early rhythm and blues, blues and rock music... Feedback? Thanks. BassHistory ( talk) 09:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I've flagged this article for the two merges which were proposed on Dec 8th without flagging on this article, to assist with awareness and discussion by all who may have an interest. ( don't think this two-way notification process was followed prior to another merger this week: see Talk:Jazz blues.) AllyD ( talk) 08:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Why and how would eight-bar blues be merged into this article? Hyacinth ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Why and how would sixteen-bar blues be merged into this article? Hyacinth ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Why and how would Bird changes be merged into this article? Hyacinth ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:V-IV-I turnaround#Merge with Twelve-bar blues? Hyacinth ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has now been ported wholesale into Twelve-bar blues. The result is what we in this part of the world call a midden. The article now has two sets of Navboxes, two placements for references, and duplicating sets of interwiki links. Use one "Nederlands" link and you'll get to "Jazzblues", use the other and you'll get to "Bluesschema". So some tidying needed, and I started then abandoned editing, as this first needs consensus on what should be the Interwiki links on this fused article: presumably just those from the original "Twelve-bar blues" article and discard the former "Jazz blues" ones as no longer worthy of an English article and therefore not an interwiki either?
But taking things a bit wider, maybe there's an opportunity for a bit more consensus building on what is the appropriate outcome in article space? A few issues then:
Thoughts welcome. I'm not sure this is even an appropriate place any more after today's merger, but the overall target article landscape surely needs to be defined and agreed rather than piecemeal change. AllyD ( talk) 18:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Why and where does this article need to be cleaned up? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth ( talk) 02:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Which examples are unclear? Hyacinth ( talk) 02:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Removed the following by User:Gene Fellner from the text of the article:
— Wahoofive ( talk) 20:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
...if even an article was begging for 'em....-- Froglich ( talk) 22:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The page is full of unplayable (for most) files that do not play on the page itself (at least not for me) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theabsurdreigns ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Fiddlesticks I noticed there are a few typos. Forgive me for my indiscretions and not spell checking. ;) Sickboy254698 ( talk) 22:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There are thousands of songs which use a 12-bar blues progression. A majority of songs by blues-related artists use it and listing them here is just stating the obvious. Propose to include only atypical (non-blues) uses of the progression. To help meet verifiablity, propose to include only songs that have WP articles that specifically say they use it or have an inline citation to a reference that confirms this (see WP:SOURCELIST). — Ojorojo ( talk) 14:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
"Citation needed" is not enough. To try and pass JBG off as a "shuffle or light swing" does not pass the listening test with me & my expert. What about you and yours? Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 22:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the sample to listen to for B is incorrect. It actually says that it's for C and plays C, I think.
Don't know how to edit this.
Berniflower ( talk) 13:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Berniflower
IDK if this is the right place to put this. If it's not I apologize. It's my first post. I am only trying to help from a musician standpoint.
For starters after reading some responses to other people's posts I'm not sure I even want to post this. Just going to throw that out there. This is something I know a lot about so I'm trying to help. I have seen other people's posts where they're trying to help out because this is something they know about and those people have accused of being ignorant and stupid. That's not what I expect for Wikipedia. Anyways....
Virtually all of the articles on Wikipedia regarding musical theory of any kind are overly complicated. Contain useless, repetitive information, and make what should be fairly simple concepts impossible to understand.
I chose this article to comment on because it's one of the only ones that is done in a way that is fairly easy for someone who is not musically inclined to understand. That being the goal I would assume. That someone who is not a musician or is looking to become one could come to this page and learn something.
This article contains simple easy to understand charts and descriptions of what goes in those charts. A very easy way for someone to say "oh wow the notes correspond to the numbers and this makes sense now". None of the other articles I have read about music theory contain any of that. I will adhere that I have read dozens if not over a hundred articles links to music theory on Wikipedia. I have read at the very least a few thousand if not more than 10,000 articles on Wikipedia. some days I will read over a hundred at a time.
Moving along... The music theory articles contain musical notation. They contain major and minor chord and note names. Scales etc. Information that the average person who comes here to learn something has no idea what you're talking about. even if you follow all the way down to the most basic of elements in the music theory articles they are all written in a way that the new person or average person cannot possibly understand. They are just way too complicated.
I am only trying to help. My suggestion would be that music articles had some sort of format applied to them. I'm not sure if that goes against what is the normal round here like I said it's my first post. I'm just trying to help. But the simplicity of the charts and diagrams provided in this article should be applied to the other articles.
Now if the answer is I should just do it my damn self. That's not very helpful. I am not a very good editor. I tend to talk too much in case you haven't noticed. I'm loquacious when I need not be. Explaining things in a simple concise way is not my expertise. Music is. So while I can suggest how the articles should be written I don't think it would be best if I wrote them.
Examples of articles that are terrible and horrendously difficult to understand.
- passing notes - tonic/root note - chord progressions
those are just three off the top of my head but...
Every article that is linked into the chord progressions article is written in the way that I described above. Too complicated. The average person will not understand. Not just the average person. The new person coming to learn something that will fulfill their soul's desires. Because that's what this should be about. The knowledge we can give to people to fulfill their own personal desires.
anyways. Like I said I can provide assistance and suggestions on how they can be made simpler. Forgive me if this was not the place to put my verbal diarrhea I'm only trying to help. Thank you Sickboy254698 ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Why is the most frequently encountered version of the progression in blues and rock (not jazz) missing from the Article? I mean:
I I I I V V I I VI V I VI
I.e. it doesn't go to the dominant in the second bar. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 13:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I | I | I | I | V | V | I | I | VI | V | I | VI |
Well I'm afraid there are other things in my life besides Wikipedia (such as miaking music) so my apologies for taking a few days to reply! Yes, I got muddled, I don't normally use that notation. Basically, I mean the commonest form stays on the root for four bars.
I I I I IV IV I I V IV I V Stub Mandrel ( talk) 21:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I see it is 'variation A', but really it does deserve a bit more prominence.
Stub Mandrel ( talk) 21:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
the notation says (simplified):
I, IV, I, I,
IV I, #IV, I, V/ii,
ii, V, I V/ii, ii V
the audio file plays (simplified):
I, IV, I, V I,
IV, #IV, I, V/ii,
ii, V, I V/ii, ii V
I think the audio file makes more sense but whichever one is right I think they should match right? changing the text for now